Yes or No

[jubaji]

so your complaint is ..."after we bombed his nation, and destroyed his military he dealt with less than desirable people?".... ...we created the situation...If we never attacked him and starved his people, he wouldnt have had to turn to the religious nuts for help huh? So we did this to ourselves enjoy that cheap oil...oh wait it aint very freakin cheap is it?....

So again your buddy Saddam was just a poor innocent victim who was minding his own business when the big bully came along and bothered him for no reason? Ok

And the fact that no more oil or lower prices have resulted or are likely to in the foreseeable future therefore puts the lie to yet another of your hysterical drama-queen fantasies.

You're a side-show clown. Back to the hideout with you.

[jubaji]

whatever dude dont even waste youre time acting like you arent parroting Icke's agenda.

You are really off in your own little world on this one, champ. Really.

[BoarSpear]

So again your buddy Saddam was just a poor innocent victim who was minding his own business when the big bully came along and bothered him for no reason? Ok

And the fact that no more oil or lower prices have resulted or are likely to in the foreseeable future therefore puts the lie to yet another of your hysterical drama-queen fantasies.

You're a side-show clown. Back to the hideout with you.

thank you Mr Icke really man it all makes sense, you use his style and his tactics

Sadamm isnt my buddy he is George Bush Sr's pissed off business partner

[BoarSpear]

You are really off in your own little world on this one, champ. Really.

Deny it, go ahead, it just makes it funnier...thats what Icke tried to do when caught as well

[BoarSpear]

And the fact that no more oil or lower prices have resulted or are likely to in the foreseeable future therefore puts the lie to yet another of your hysterical drama-queen fantasies.
.

hey Jr i didnt say oil was gonna be cheaper , my point was it isnt...Mike Brewer said maybe we could get cheap oil for the people in N.O. not me...

[BoarSpear]

Do you honestly think that Saddam was a good guy, minding his own business, no threat to anyone (except maybe the kurds and residents of the southern wetlands whose land he drained and whose people he attempted to eradicate - and the Shiites, and the Sunnis who didn't agree with him. Oh, oh...and the Israelis, and the westerners he offered rewards for killing. And, um, the "criminals" who opposed his genocidal policies and committed such heinous crimes as speaking their opinions. And the women he allowed his sons to kidnap and rape, then throw out of upper floor windows to die slowly on the streets below. Oh, and the people he had his sons murder, just so they'd understand the feeling of taking life)? If that's the way you honestly feel, what the **** does it take to be a bad guy in your book?

Well we sure picked a piece of shit to do business with didnt we? I never said sadamm wasnt a piece of shit, but he isnt anymore guilty than his partners in crime. We went after him because he wasnt playing ball with the bushes anymore, not because he was a bad guy...

Do you think the guys we are training today are any less likely to be the problem in 10 years? We are making nice with new shitheads right now, gee i wonder where thats gonna lead?

what buddies have we made in the middle east that didnt shaft us?..So why arm and train a new group?...

[Garland]

I will say this much, and only this much, on my stance against the war.
I saw no rational reason to place ties between Sept. 11 and Iraq. When Saddam tried to have a civil discourse with Bush, we bombed him. (remember before the bombs started dropping, newscasts showed Saddam asking for a conference with G.W.?)
Furthermore, the past history between the Bush and Saddam dynasties suggested alterior motives for our initiation to attack Iraq, as does their oil reserves.
Why are we letting our young men die for this bullshit?!
Is this going to be another Korea or another Vietnam. The war on terror is about as inane and fucking dumb as the war on communism, or the war on drugs. It's a misnomer.
The suicide/martyr shit has been done for hundreds of years, look at the bonzai charges in WW2. Killing civilians as a tactic has been used by every nation, country, tribe, gang on the face of the fucking planet. War is terror. If you don't call the threat of nuclear war, or the bombing of cities filled with civilians terrorism...I don't know what the **** to respond. We have all of that shit in our back pocket, but because they COULD, perhaps SOMEDAY have it, we go ape shit and start a war.

What is the ultimate goal of these guys? To kill every American? Why??? Doesn't that seem at least a little questionable?

What WAS sept. 11th all about, anyway? For the symbolism? Jesus...go after the terrorist groups, don't start invading countries, because in a way...that (to throw the same shit back in the Republicans face) would mean that the terrorists win. Because it almost justifies the fucked up shit they do. We make it so we're as bad as they say we are. We're feeding the fire by bringing ourselves down to their level.

Shit. Both sides are fucked. All are punished. Bush and the red-state duchebags show the worst of America to the rest of the world, and the fucking terrorists, they show the world the worst side of Islam.
God help American Muslims in the rest of the world's eyes. (har de har har. I'm only half joking.)

This shit keeps up, and I'll move to Canada. That's right, I'll dodge the draft.
Why? Because as much as I love and respect America, and I AM a patriot...I don't have to buy into the bullshit propaganda that the government is feeding us, nor do I have to agree with our government's decisions. I will not die because some assholes at the reigns decides to abuse America and exploit it to promote their own agendas.
God bless America, God help Americans, God damn politicians.
And for God sakes, SAVE our troops from these assholes!

[jubaji]

Deny it, go ahead, it just makes it funnier...thats what Icke tried to do when caught as well

Well, you go ahead and get your fill of 'crazy' then. If you want to keep going on about whatever the hell it is you are going on about, be my guest. If you don't think everyone here is wondering "what the **** is this guy getting on about?" then you are further divorced from reality than even I gave you credit for.

[jubaji]

buh-bye

This shit keeps up, and I'll move to Canada.

Why wait? Do you think you'll be missed?

[jubaji]

If that's the way you honestly feel, what the **** does it take to be a bad guy in your book?

That's easy. To be a bad guy in his book you just need to be an American.

[PFC_Kurtz_John]

...... does every new topic allways turn out to be a big argument about the war or its over seas policys ?


Befor you post what is wrong with everything try and tell me what you would have done if you were in the Presednts shoes.

[Garland]

Why wait? Do you think you'll be missed?

Unlike you...yes, yes I do think I'll be missed when I bounce from this shit.
It's nobodies fault that your an ostricized little assclown, cept your own.
A good place to remedy that would be to try and keep you stank ass a bit cleaner by only posting relevant shit, instead of pirating the thread with really fucking stupid one liners.

I'm sure you must have been really funny in highschool, but those days are gone, sucka...give it a rest and get down to doing something productive!

[jubaji]

so go! who the **** needs ya?

Unlike you...yes, yes I do think I'll be missed when I bounce from this shit.:

Well, you never know 'till you try. Git goin!

[aseepish]

I voted no.

While I agree that Saddam was a monster, and removing him was morally comendable, the circumstances of his removal (i.e. the invasion) have left the world a much less secure place.

On September 12 2001, the whole world (with some exceptions) was heartfully sympathetic towards America. "We are all Americans" was the sentiment expressed. The international community supported the invasion and removal of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. NATO invoked Article Five, the call to action of all member states in the event of an attack on one of its members. The action in Afghanistan was widely seen as just.

America squandered this political capital in the years following Afghanistan. In the eyes of the world, the case for invading Iraq was weak. Diplomatic attempts to gain support for a war failed. The result of America's decision to invade without the support of most of its allies was a diplomatic catastrophe.

Even assuming that Saddam did indeed posess chemical or biological weapons, there was no indication that he would have employed them against the west. Gathering the diplomtatic support necessary for an invasion would have made extraction much less complicated.

The occupation of Iraq has given radical muslims more fuel for discontent. If Iraq wasn't a haven for anti-western terrorists before the invasion, it certainly is one now.

By making Iraq a powerless state, America has destabilized the region. Iraq was a very useful counter-balance to Iranian power. It is highly unlikely that American dreams for a secular pro-western government in the new Iraq will be realized.

In short the invasion diminished America's security instead of enhancing it.

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/

[aseepish]

Mike,

I agree with a lot of what you wrote.

I'm very much in favour of UN reform. The UN wasn't doing a good job with weapons inspections, and the level of corruption in oil-for-food was horrendous. America doesn't necessarily need a 1991-style UN resolution to justly engage in military activity - witness the bombing of Serbia in 1999. That action had NATO support though.

The UN aside, key NATO allies refused to support the invasion of Iraq because they felt that a diplomatic solution hadn't been given time to work.

In the case of Afghanistan, the proof was indisputable. In the case of Iraq, many governments had a lot of questions as to the quality of the intelligence.
I won't argue that Saddam didn't pose a threat to the west. However, I'm not convinced that the magnitude of the threat was immediate enough to justify a unilateral pre-emptive war though. If he was indeed selling biological weapons to terrorists, that changes things. It gets very complicated when non-state actors get involved. In 1967 when Egypt told Israel "We will destroy you!" Israel believed them and struck pre-emtively and with justification.Perhaps better intelligence would have helped to convince other governments.

If terrorist fund-raisers want to dump their funds into supplying the insurgency, I agree. Let them! I read recently that foreign fighters in Iraq are not popular with the locals. This is a piece of good news. I do see the insurgency as an expression of nationalism instead of simply being anti-US. Perhaps I'm overly pessimistic about the chances that the new Iraqi government will be pro-US. I think if there's a Saigon-style withdrawal the chances are very slim.

When I called Iraq a powerless state I was referring to the fact that it doesn't have an army or police force. Progress is being made, but there is no way the US can withdraw without Iraqi military units being completely non-dependent on US support, and that point is very far in the future. If the US were to withdraw tomorrow, there would be chaos in Iraq. It's funny. I was anti-invasion, but I am pro-occupation. With more allies though, the burden of occupation and reconstruction could have been shared. The issue would have been a lot less painful for Americans.

As a side note, giving Arafat the Nobel Peace Prize in 1994 was really really strange. I'm surprised Kim Jong Il hasn't won one yet.